I’m not saying the worst, otherwise I would need to include the star wars sequels or transformers movies… Just some really dumb movie that somehow got praised.
For me has to be Ready Player One. That movie message is so “uhuh” obvious that is stupid, the whole nerd that saves the world in a thing that otherwise would be useless to know in real life… The so over the top evil gaming corporation. The whole 80s and 90s movies and games references get old after half an hour… And it’s so pandering towards the geeks and nerds, they really want the viewer feeling really cool for knowing that is the Shining hallway, or that is a Monty python reference… Or look a GUNDAM! YOU’RE SO COOL FOR COLLECTING THOSE GUN PLA! Look we have also overwatch and halo in the background! You’re so cool modern gamer!
Also the obviously attractive “nerd” hacker girl that thinks she’s ugly and deformed for having a small hard to see red tint in one side of her pretty face… Cmon man. In no universe anyone would think that actress is ugly.
And the message at the end is so hilarious: Look man, you’re cool for getting these references and being a real gamer is cool, but go outside more!
Is like the creators have no self awareness.
For me, it was A Quiet Place. I found it incredibly dumb and impossible to believe that nobody on the whole of the planet ever considered that these aliens with ultra incredible hearing weren’t somehow vulnerable to noise? Just dumb as fuck, especially when you consider that sonic weapons already exist and are used, and sound is routinely used in torture/incarceration scenarios.
I like it but yeah, somehow high pitched noise lose to gunshot.
I actually don’t mind the premises behind the Death Angels, but the reasoning is pretty weak behind them. They could be defeated easily and the cast would not survive outside of the film’s sound design. The rest is just shit occurring for the point of the movie to exist, and its told pretty damn well.
And then they made a sequel. And now a prequel. This didn’t need to be a franchise.
Iirc, cochlear implants don’t actually produce sounds, but an electro static (?) feedback. So the aliens aren’t actually vulnerable to sounds but to that.
The movie probably could have explained that better
Also the solution is guns.
deleted by creator
I worked on the space shuttle program, and I found Armageddon almost unwatchable. I mean, those things go up with the big solid rockets and an external tank full of hydrogen and oxygen, all of which get jettisoned during launch, then they come down as a glider. But in the movie they’re landing on asteroids and taking off again, smashing into things and still flying, etc. (remember how Columbia blew up because of a crack in the leading edge of one wing?). Plus the whole premise of it being easier to teach oil drillers how to be astronauts than to teach astronauts how to be oil drillers is a joke. Every astronaut I’ve met has been an amazing capable person - many are test pilots with multiple advanced degrees.
I always love the interview with Ben Affleck about Armageddon: “I asked Micheal why it would be easier to train drillers to be astronauts rather than vice versa, and he just responded with ‘fuck you.’”
Ha! I hadn’t heard that - I’m glad someone involved called him out on it. I mean, I get that the real answer - to that and all my complaints - is that the movie doesn’t work otherwise, but it’s so annoying.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
The very first bit in this video
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If the movie doesn’t work unless you include a plot hole then the movie doesn’t work.
As soon as you know too much about a certain topic, any movie or series about it turns to shit.
I’m a nurse and badly done medical stuff in movies are so rampant and it drives me crazy.
That’s super true. What’s worse is that it often turns out to be true of news as well. There have been a few times when I was familiar with events that made the news, and there were always inaccuracies in the articles. It’s made me look at articles on events that I’m not familiar with differently; they probably have the same amount of inaccuracies.
I’m software engineering in aerospace, so a lot of computer and space stuff is ruined, which covers a lot of content.
But everyone should smack their heads about Armageddon.
Astronauts brains are too big, their soft womanly hands incapable of drilling. Wearing a spacesuit and floating around a bit is trivial. Only some yeehaw boys and one man who ‘tells it like it is’ can save us.
There’s also the really stupid “high G burn around the moon” scene, which I would love to see Scott Manley try to replicate in KSP.
That’s why I liked Deep Impact. It went must more (potentially) realistic than Armageddon. But the latter wanted its “common man, that people can relate to, saves the day” trope.
Deep impact is a great movie! Directed by Mimi Leder. She also directed The Peacemaker, a great 90’s adventure movie with George Clooney and Nichole Kidman. If you’re into that sort of thing.
Because it’s easier to put someone in a suite than teach them years of experience of drilling. You might remember that even the experianced driller had trouble. They also send astronauts with them as well to do the astronaut things, not just the driller crew.
The smashing into things thing and still taking off…well the movie was supposed to have a happy end for the remaining crew. It would’ve still been a happy end to have them die, but this way you get a lovely reunion with the families.
I don’t know you, but if you go by questioning plot-armor, you’ll have a really hard time to find something to watch.
Agreed. All the drillers have to do is ride. OTOH, neither group would fare well learning to drill in microgravity.
I don’t understand the the thinking that astronauts would be amazing drillers. Drilling is functionally a trade, the education aspect isn’t the key factor, it’s the experience. The movie actually does a fair job explaining why.
I would have written it so the drilling crew needed to learn to be astronauts and the astronauts needed to learn drilling and send them both up. That way, they would be each other’s backups and you get another small story arc out of it.
I never said that being a driller is trivial. Do you think being an astronaut is trivial? That’s a pretty intensely technical job, which is why the bar for entry is so insanely high. I would put my money on those folks leaning how to drill better than drillers leaning how to be an astronaut.
It’s not trivial to be an astronaut, but most didn’t need to be. Flying the ships, docking, and landing on an asteroid all require intense skills. The drilling required a similarly intense set of skills that you can’t gain in a week. You can probably teach someone the bare minimum of putting on a suit and working in it.
I’m sorry but I ADORE Armageddon lol is very emotional and self aware. Is definitely a NO BORING movie and always keeps moving, even when there’s no explosions going on. Ben Affleck > Neil Armstrong, I bet he couldn’t had reached those 400 feet in time! 💣
La La Land. Musicals are already on thin ice, but a musical about some arrogant, self obsessed people complaining about how hard it is trying to be (and ultimately succeeding in being) successful?? UGH. Shut it all down.
More importantly, >!they just gave up on their relationship because one of them was leaving the country? For what, less than a year? After all that, they just threw it all away because they didn’t want to deal with FaceTime for a couple of months? Bet they felt real fucking dumb when the pandemic hit.!<
Right?! “Oh no we are so brilliant and talented and smoking hot, but the world won’t just give us success on a silver platter and now that we made our dreams come true we miss being together”.
Avatar
That’s a strange film. I watched it at the cinema when released and enjoyed the visuals, but it seemed like the story was purposely simplified to a wild west love yarn so that the audience would have to focus on the visuals. There’s so little to distract from the “cutting edge” CGI, any depth to the plot or characters would be detrimental to the six fucking years he spent making it.
Which I can understand as it does achieve that. And I didn’t hate it, mainly because it did look amazing and I wasn’t distracted from that. But I’ve never watched it again and wouldn’t want to.
Weird.
Dances With Aliens was a masterpiece, dammit!!!
Seriously, it was fine I guess. Agreed that it looked fucking amazing in theaters.
Name a main character. Not the actor, the character.
If you can, you’ll be the first person who has been able to that I have asked. (Though I have never asked online.)
You’ve asked the wrong guy. All I know is it’s Kevin Costner.
So close, if only you had said Mary McDonnell.
I knew them (Sam & Zoe’s characters), but I watched the sequel only last year. I probably couldn’t have told you had you asked me in 2022.
I don’t remember any other character names from either movie.
John Smith?
Jake from State Farm?
Same. I liked the movies for what they are: expensive, cinematic special-effects thrill rides with pretty much the loosest stories.
The second one looked absolutely gorgeous in theaters.
I appreciate this take
It is too early to say Oppenheimer?
Agreed. Bombastic. Felt like it missed the whole point of Oppenheimer’s moral dilemma
I’m biased but I thought it was pretty clear with portraying Truman as an unambiguously bad guy and Oppenheimer as decent but failing at a critical moment and then regretting it later
I’ve always imagined his moral dilemma was knowing that (after the Nazis were defeated) going ahead with the bomb was wrong, but wanting to do it anyway - because they had become so invested in the idea, and wanted to see if they could.
I’d been pretty eager to see it. Everyone told me how intense it was, I actually put it off for a little while because I wasn’t sure I was in the mood for something really bleak and existential.
Watching it I was like oh okay this is a movie. Not bad but I wouldn’t call it an intense experience.
Haven’t been able to finish it, losing my attention on it. Want to join the hype but… 🤷
deleted by creator
Gravity isn’t a space movie. It’s just 2 hours of Sandra Bullock crying and hallucinating. It’s probably the second worst movie I’ve ever seen after Open Water.
And that scene where she can’t pull in the non-accelerated astronaut colleague while still being in atmosphere thin enough that he wouldn’t fall behind, so he just drifts away through magic
James Cameron’s Titanic. It’s marketed as a romantic film, but the moment you start looking at other aspects of the movie, it just seems stupid. The antagonist is so cartoonishly evil, it’s a wonder they didn’t give him a mustache to twirl.
And then there’s the ending. Oh dear lord, the ending. Spoiler warning and all that: at the end of the movie, The Titanic s(t)inks and the passengers try to get to safety. Rose finds a floating door or something to stay afloat and finds Jack swimming in the freezing ocean. Then Jack makes the most non-sensical decision in the entire movie: he sacrifices his own life for no good reason. The plot frames it as a necessary sacrifice, but it totally IS unnecessary, because there was enough room on the stupid door for two people. And then we flash forward to the present, where Rose is old, but still has that gem she wore throughout the movie… and then she tosses it into the ocean. WHY.
Basically the plot boils down to: two young people have a fling on a boat and then the boat sinks. It absolutely did NOT deserve all those academy awards it got that year.
People are STILL bringing up the “there’s enough room” arguments?
The movie LITERALLY shows you why it doesn’t work. At first they both try to climb on it, but they’re too heavy and the stupid thing capsizes. Only then is Jack like “You go take it, Imma good”
Also, Mythbusters tried it and got the same results. 2 people to heavy, 1 ok.
No, the Mythbusters actually proved the door could support two people. At the end James Cameron himself basically throws his hands up, concedes and makes some comment about “whatever, if the script says Jack has to die, Jack is dying.” Rewatch the edpisode if ya don’t believe me
Yes, after the took off their lifebelts and tied them under the door for adden buoyancy.
I think two people, already stressed to their teeth, now also suffering from hypothermia can be forgiven for not having the same presence of mind in that situation
Guess i forgot about that detail, so thanks for the correction. The end results are the same either way though. The door can float 2 but the script says jack has to die, rendering the entire argument pretty moot. James Cameron’s comment was basically “science be dammed, Jack’s drowning.”
I’m sure if Cameron realized that the door of that size, with two life jackets underneath could support two people, he would have written the door to be smaller. It’s ok not to like the film, but this is just CinemaSins level pedantic.
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie (and have no desire to see it again) and I don’t remember the scene as clearly, so that’s on me. Throwing away the gem was still colossaly stupid, though.
deleted by creator
Dito
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
I’m a huge Tarantino fan and enjoyed every single one of his movies, except that one.
Maybe you had to have been in the Hollywood scene at the time to understand the humor, but I was bored out of my mind the whole time and wondered whether he’s making fun of the audience and seeing if he can get away with a movie without a real storyline if he just includes his signature foot shots, long conversations about nothing and a massacre at the end.I think the problem was that half of the movie was a memorial to the victims of the Charles Manson murders and the other half of the movie was about Brad Pitt and DiCaprio, and the two stories had absolutely zero synergy.
just includes his signature foot shots
To be fair, those foot shots are … as good as foot shots can be, at least.
Sigh.
I’m a huge Tarantino fan and enjoyed every single one of his movies, except that one.
Are you including Jackie Brown in this assessment? Because that’s the one Tarantino film I’d never return to. Bored the shit out of me.
I can see how Once Upon a Time in Hollywood wouldn’t do it for a lot of people. The storyline was pretty bloody thin.
From memory, my wife and I had only just recently watched the Aquarius TV series (a few years after it was made) followed by Mindhunter (we were on a true crime kick back then), so the intersection with the Manson murders kept us hooked. Also, Tarantino using the same Aussie actor from Mindhunter to reprise the role of Manson felt like a really cool Easter egg.
But, that’s the thing about Tarantino - he’s always going to be polarizing. You either love or hate a given piece of his work, I guess.
I disagree entirely. Jackie Brown is actually my favorite Tarantino film.
Tasteful and interesting.
See? That just illustrates my point perfectly. I reckon Tarantino intentionally sets out to put people firmly on either side of the love/hate fence, with each film.
It was hugely freeing for me to realize this. I didn’t really care for Death Proof and I absolutely hated Inglorious Bastards. My friends thought I was crazy. After loving Kill Bill and everything I had seen before it, I thought Tarantino had just gotten too far up his own ass. Then Django came out and was just fun and cathartic and I realized I just needed to take each project as it came
Damn, Jackie Brown is great
damn i loved jackie brown i thought it was fantastic. and i also loved once upon a time in hollywood
Yeah Jackie Brown is my least favourite Tarantino film by a mile.
I never finished it j just got bored
Black Panther.
It had so much hype in the media, i was so excited to watch it. It turned out to be rather boring and forgettable.
A nation of people so advanced that they decide their dictatorial ruler through a trial by combat.
I’m reliably informed there are people who like Michael Bay’s Transformers movies. The most interesting part of the entire series to me was watching a Camaro get into a literal fist fight with a Mustang. Otherwise my memories of the movie were having eye rollingly childish catch phrases boomed down at me, or visuals that are basically just technicolor television snow.
Transformers for me was pretty much Megan Fox and nothing else.
There were other people in that movie?
The hilarious thing is that, in the script, Megan Fox’s character is actually really interesting and multidimensional. And Bay films her as just some T&A.
I’m not complaining tbh.
No like is the wrong word. I love them. Don’t know why thou, they are fucking stupid.
I mean its clearly an ad for the military where cars beat up cars. Buuuut Its hilariously epic and very comforting in its shallowness. Normally I am more of a weird indie movie guy. But every time optimus calls out all autobots in the end I cry.I like them because they’re stupid. I do have a problem seeing irony where there is none though.
Transformers: Dumb blockbuster movie that somehow received high praise. I think I understood the assignment.
I thought the first one was at least fun, but had some obviously annoying parts that should have been cut from any sequel.
Then the second one comes out, and the annoying parts of the first are the entire movie of the second.
The Starwars Prequels.
They were so bad, but not nearly as bad as the sequels.
I think I would agree, though I only watched the sequels once and was so bored I didn’t really pay attention. But when the sequels released Starwars was already ruined and I very much expected them to be shit. So I guess they don’t feel as bad because they were close to what I expected.
Also I’ve seen very little praise for them compared to the prequels.
Hard disagree, the sequels were much better than the prequels IMO. Well, 2 of them were.
I was old enough to see the original trilogy re-released with all the bad dumb filler George Lucas thought was necessary to complete his vision.
All the poopy squelchy gross-out CGI was obviously a crass moneygrab, but it seemed like such a reflection of the man himself that I boycotted the prequels when they came out. Then I found Red Letter Media. Fuck the prequels. Fuck that creepy bastard. Han shot only.
The prequels had the best light saber fights in the franchise though.
I guess they look prettier. But they are boring AF. There is no tension or stakes between the characters because they’re all boring or unlikable and it’s so highly choreographed it looks like dance number from a musical.
Yeah, OT lightsaber fights lacked action. But at least they had weight and meaning behind them. That makes them much, much better in my opinion.
OT lightsaber fights looked like people who practiced the idea of “less is more” combat and knew pointless flailing and twirling around was useless against a similarly skilled opponent. This MADE SENSE. Everyone in the prequels flipping around and going nuts with the lightsabers and all that – it was laughable. Even Luke in the OT who wasn’t as skilled as some of the so-called “masters” from the prequels used at least some restraint and thought when fighting.
The prequels are garbage and I’m sick of people who think they’re good just because we made memes out of them.
Spot on. And don’t even get me started on Yoda. Not even did they make him stupid as fuck … no, he also had to get a little lightsaber and flip around like a character on super smash brothers. So ridiculous and basically a total character assasination.
They’re lightsabers wtf would they need weight lmao
Look, George Lucas wanted Wu xia style movies with space samurais and the choreography did that PERFECTLY. Is supposed to look like a dance, have you seen HERO or crouching tiger hidden dragon?
The Disney sequels tried to do a more “realistic” style, I bet inspired by John Wick or the bourne movies but with “swords” but failed, the mistakes can be seen during the choreography. I can’t remember a single mistake being noticeable during the prequel fights.
Ok, so you clearly only care about the action scenes and don’t care about the story at all. Guess that’s a view point that exists.
Anakin vs Obi wan was a visual spectacle and still one of most emotional fights in the series… And it’s in the prequel. I rest in my case.
I guess having 15 mins dance number against overloaded CGI background is technically a “visual spectacle”, I so give you that.
one of most emotional fights
I don’t even know how to respond to that. I guess feeling relief that the movie is finally over is an emotion.
Honestly, now that I’ve watched them more recently I enjoyed them a ton. At least Lucas had an idea of where he wanted to go with it, unlike the shit Disney trilogy.
Aeons ago, I came across a picture of a young woman in a “steampunk Elsa” cosplay. It was “steam punk” because she had brown leather straps with brass buckles everywhere and she was wearing a pair of goggles like a hat. It was “Elsa” because the cloth parts of her bustier was cyan.
Feels reductive, right? That a genre of fiction with themes and ideas to explore, and a main character from a major motion picture, both get boiled down to some leather straps and colored cloth.
That’s what Disney did to Star Wars. It’s not a story anymore, it’s a cosplay aesthetic.
Oh, yes the special edition re-release … where all the guns have been replaced by walkie-talkies and the word Wookie has been change to “hair challenged animal”.
The Plinkett reviews are probably the best thing that came from the prequels! I must have watched them more often then the actual movies by now.
I kind of like them, actually. I know this is a fairly unpopular opinion, so allow me to elaborate:
I grew up with ep IV through VI, as my brother had them on VHS. I was instantly a fan, and I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen them.
Once I was old enough to be aware of the concept of a story not existing in a vacuum, I started wondering about how ep III ended, and other things, long before I knew they would turn the prequels into movies as well. I was curious about the world building and the star wars universe in general.And that’s what the prequels did for me: They finally answered so many of the questions I had after watching the originals. So it was pretty cool for me to finally see that aspect on the big screen as well.
However, they should’ve skipped JarJar Binks. And a lot of the world building seemed tacked on as a result of George Lucas realizing he could include anything he wanted thanks to CGI.
And speaking of CGI: Han shot first. I liked the remasters, but they truly fucked ip Han Solo, trying to make him a loveable loner instead of some outlaw who was after a quick buck
And that’s what the prequels did for me: They finally answered so many of the questions I had after watching the originals. So it was pretty cool for me to finally see that aspect on the big screen as well.
But it was terrible worldbuilding that often contradicts the original movies or just doesn’t make any sense.
I liked the prequels when they first came out. But I was around 11. And I thought they were great because of the much better lightsaber and spaceship action. I got so many Starwars LEGO sets.
When I rewatched them in my early twenties I was baffled about how bad they were, now having learned to care about storytelling and characters from other shows and movies, the fight- and action scenes weren’t really that important and when you don’t focus on them, the movies are just so boring and awkward. That wasn’t the case when rewatching the OT.
I want two things from star wars, lightsaber fights and mandalorians. The pre-quals are the best source of both.
I’ve recently come to terms with the fact that I guess I’ve just grown out of Star Wars. When you strip away all of the nostalgia, I don’t think any of the originals (or prequels) hold up at all. And the newer ones have just been trash.
I’ve recently come to terms with the fact that I guess I’ve just grown out of Star Wars. When you strip away all of the nostalgia
Very true. Rewatching stuff later with a new perspective certainly changes things.
I don’t think any of the originals (or prequels) hold up at all.
That is where I disagree. THe orginals do hold up, because Starwars was about classic adventure story. The character of Luke Skywalker. The original trilogoy (and there are quality differences between the eopisodes) overall get this right. It’s the sort of timless story, just with a spin on it beeing a sci-fi world.
The prequels and sequels completley missed that aspect of basic stoytelling. The OT stands out as a piece of revolutionary cinema, where the prequels are an elaborate ad to sell more Starwars toys.
Does that mean that from your point of view all the movies are evil?
Not sure what you mean by that.
I can offer you bad, terrible, aweful, dreadful, horrendous, vile, digusting … but I wouldn’t say evil.
I was joking using the meme by Anakin
where the prequels are an elaborate ad to sell more Starwars toys
This is clearly not true, Lucas cared a lot about his story and universe. I say this hoping it helps effectively communicate points later: statements like that detract from your premise because they’re obviously false to an audience that knows and cares. It would be better (from a rhetorical standing) to double down on the poor storytelling allegations by acknowledging it as true instead, then going on to say that they were cinematic incoherence regardless.
I haven’t seen a single one of the prequels in over a decade except RotS (which I thought was an interesting story but a poorly made film), but my dislike of the prequels is because they’re not good movies. My dislike of the sequels is that they were not good and were made to maximize profits.
THe orginals do hold up, because Starwars was about classic adventure story. The character of Luke Skywalker… It’s the sort of timless story, just with a spin on it beeing a sci-fi world… The prequels and sequels completley missed that aspect of basic stoytelling.
This is where I completely disagree. Movies should not be aiming to do only the classic adventure story over and over again, and the prequels weren’t bad because of the story. They actually had a pretty classic story too: an evil being corrupts a well-meaning but slow-to-react institution filled with self serving or incompetent representatives by manufacturing conflict to seize power. All the while the forces of good are distracted and unfocused by the chaos— and too sure that their institutions will not bend to tyranny— until it is too late. With a solid director, the prequels could have been excellent, and also perhaps a prophetic warning about complacent democracies.
This is clearly not true, Lucas cared a lot about his story and universe.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Oh wait, your’re serious. Let me laugh even harder.
Movies should not be aiming to do only the classic adventure story over and over again, and the prequels weren’t bad because of the story.
Right. Movies shouldn’t. But Starwars should. But that’s not even the main issue. The prequels are just terribly written, no matter what genre they were supossed to be. Bad story, terrible characters with no development, inchorent and self condtradictory and padded with stupidly long and boring action scences. They are just bad movies. A director couldn’t have fixed that, they would need a complete rewrite.
I liked grievous
Guardians of the galaxy 3. Would not be surprised to learn ChatGPT wrote the dialogue.
Thor: Love and Thunder felt like it was written by a Disney executive suite after they ran metrics on what test groups laughed at in Taika’s other work, then amplified the lulz by 20%, and rewrote it for the 11-16 year old market.
I had already been getting sick of superhero movies, but god damn that one was awful imo. The genre should have ended on a high note and stuck with that. It’s a great time to try new, non-super hero movies.
Because the whole “casual super hero start -> personal setback -> bad guy: all your base belong to us -> super hero assembles a team to destroy NYC -> bad guy loses all bases in 40 minutes” plot is very tired.
Has this movie been praised though?
Doubtful. The whole marvel train is crashing.
Deadpool would like to disagree. That movie is going to absolutely fucking slap.
only it lol
I had the feeling that they tried to merge a dark drama and a slapstick comedy into one movie.
The God killer, especially the intro was quite interesting and dark. I could relate with his anger, disappointment and urge for vengeance.
deleted by creator
So many movies and tv shows lately feel like they were written by ai.
Man people really liked that movie and i just do not get it. I really like the first guardians movie. It’s probably my favourite of all those superhero disney movies. The dialogue is horrible, everyone is trying to be a comedian. They made this pseudo sad ark for rocket, that was so damn cheap. Showing cute animals getting tortured/killed is such a lazy way to make people care. The only good thing about the movies are some of the crazy visuals and that groot wasn’t a baby anymore.
crash won an oscar for best picture and it was complete and utter garbage
I can’t see the name Crash and not think of the 1996 movie with James Spader. Which is weird as fuck.
Cronenberg be cronenbergin
I never understood the hatred for crash. It’s a great story great acting and great ending. I really don’t see what the hate is about.
Barbie.
I like Margot Robbie. I like Ryan Gosling. I like fun movies. But idk, it just didn’t really appeal to me, and the plot felt predictable. I don’t regret watching it necessarily, but I also have no interest in watching it again.
:(
I like Margot Robbie.
:)
but I also have no interest in watching it again.
:(
Watch me several times now and then I’ll watch you several times back
You’re a great dude, Margot Robbie.
That’s esteemed Academy Award nominated great dude Margot Robbie to you!
(Dude is gender neutral now)
Barbie movie Predictable
Were you expecting a post-modern masterpiece?
No, but with all of the hype and excitement around it, I thought there was something extra-special about this movie. Like an interesting/unexpected story.
it was unexpected for a Barbie movie
I thought it was fun and I get why it’s been so exceedingly popular but they tried a little too hard to make the concept of Barbie and the concept of womanhood out to be the same thing. For a lot of people that really worked and I think that’s made it harder to criticize.
There are some really top tier moments though which made it easier to forget and forgive all the boring bits.
I love the idea, to change the gender and show how it would look if women was the dominant sex
I don’t think what they made was plausible. I know, it’s barbie, but I don’t find this version of “woman power” plausible without it changing the gender expressions. Like, how masculinity and being formed by masculinity being an expression of dominans, and therefore changes how men dress, behave and express themselves would change a lot Also, this is not a matriarchy, it is a patriarchy but where the women have the power. I’ve read several books where they flip the sexes, and I’ve found the concept interesting because it points out how much of our society is formed by the patriarchy, for all genders, which makes a lot of fun and interesting situations
I love the idea, to change the gender and show how it would look if women was the dominant sex
Watch the movie “I Am Not an Easy Man.”
deleted by creator
I was so confused about the message… Ken went full patriarchy, but then demonstrated that it wasn’t really that bad (also, no horses). So compared to barbieland the real world is absolutely paradise. Then they flip the full-on matriarchal barbieland to complete patriarchy, find that the women don’t like that, do a bit of gender war and go mostly matriarchy because reasons. And than a bitter remark that women have it hard in the real world so men will have it hard in barbieland. It’s all over the place.
The weird pacing, jokes that fall flat and at one point goes all 3 stooges just left me feeling… Empty, afterwards. All that hype, all the people rooting for and against it, people complaining that it didn’t win all the awards… I thought it was a vapid, low quality summer movie.
deleted by creator
I think it confronted some issues that many of us have been aware of for a long time in a somewhat superficial way. I also think that it brought some conversations into the mainstream that might not have happened otherwise. So I liked it.
The constant attack towards men ruined that movie, it wasn’t even a clever attack just dumb feminism
The Barbie movie isn’t attacking men, it just lampoons society using the Barbies and Kens as silly caricatures.
Maybe it has a slight vapid girl power message but the real message is “hey remember this Barbie doll? Give us money”
While I do agree that it, at times, definitely stepped into ‘dumb femminism’ as you put it. I also acknowledge that it was a movie and to do a discussion on feminism justice it would require a lot more than 2 hours. So a lot got simplified, sometimes too much. I disagree with you that it was a constant attack towards men. The movie went wayyyyy out of its way to make it clear they were attacking patriarchal systems, not men in general. That’s Ken’s whole arc, he’s suffering under patriarchy too. He just also gets the benefits of the patruarchy while he’s suffering. If I had any criticism about the film it was how much it tried to avoid criticizing capitalism and corporate culture’s role.
Nah I’m sorry but it was an aimed attack. The speech about what society expects from a woman is such bullshit. As a man that is very old school I don’t need woman to look great for me but not enough for other men, or being delicate, or earning less and all that stupidity. The men were the villain in the movie and the butt of the joke…
And the Ken character was fine. Only at the very end was almost shoehorned the “oh actually the system is the problem” and wtf didn’t he got Barbie at the end, she even wanted him at first. Now that he was a better person or whatever why they went separate ways? There’s no satisfactory ending for neither of the characters.
Thank you for projecting your experience as an individual man, on the experience of all women re what society expects of them.
Fucking Bravo.
Sorry to break it to you, but everyone projects their own experience. A man’s experience is just as valid, even if you disagree with it.
I’m using me as an example, especially since I’m not a gen Z, but do you really think the average dude feels much different about women? Cmon
Wow fuckin’ wooosh with you and that one hey? Only a very weak beta would feel even remotely attacked by that movie. Good luck Chuck!
Crash the 2004 hit movie not the 1996 Cronenberg Cult-classic.
to elaborate, it was insincere corporate virtue signalling designed specifically to bait the academy awards by using a multi-character parallel storytelling style that is only ever celebrated amongst industry snobs.
a multi-character parallel storytelling style that is only ever celebrated amongst industry snobs
I’m going to agree with caveats here, because some directors who are actual artists do it for the sake of the film and the challenge of it, as opposed to what I’ll refer to as “industry types”, who do it for the prizes. And some crazy bastards manage to pull it off. Three names come to mind - Robert Altman, Paul Thomas Anderson and Steven Soderbergh.
I’ve never seen “Crash” and never wanted to, from what I’ve read, the bland yet heavy-handed results onscreen, plus the lazy reflexive accolades, made me view the whole thing with a cynical eye, like you.
In fact, Robert Altman had a thing or two to say about those “industry types”, in his triumphant early-90s comeback film “The Player”.
Also, do yourself a favor and watch Altman’s “Short Cuts”, to see parallel storytelling at its’ best.Short Cuts is amazing. Altman changed the game in many ways. I believe he changed the entire way we record dialogue because the way we did it before just didn’t work for him.
Altman came in throwing punches with the noisy background and chaotic dialogue wafting every which way, right from the outset, on MASH and McCabe & Mrs Miller, which is why it’s a good idea to watch his films with English subtitles turned on.
I don’t remember the cacophony being as intense in some of his other early works, like Brewster McCloud, California Split and The Long Goodbye.
But in Nashville, it’s most certainly there, front and center and in your face.I’ve only ever seen Short Cuts (loved it), the Player (liked it a lot), and McCabe and Mrs Miller (ehh…). How do you think I’d feel about his other films?
My recommendations to you are as follows:
My favorite Altman film overall probably might have to be The Long Goodbye. Check out how the camera is always moving, if even slightly; there are no static shots. Midway through the movie, the great Sterling Hayden steals the show. And keep an eye out for a very, very young Ahnold Schwarzenegger in a bit role as literal and figurative muscle for the batshit insane bad guy.
Brewster McCloud is a bonkers twisted fantasy that caught me by surprise by how much I enjoyed it, it’s about a kid who:
- Lives in the Astrodome in secret, in a forgotten construction nook, a big one, between walls and floors.
- Wants to be able to fly.
- Is being encouraged by an older woman, who might actually already know how to fly.
Also, there are people being killed all over town, and it might have something to do with all this.
Thanks, I’ve saved your comment and I’ll add them to the list.
“In fact, Robert Altman had a thing or two to say about those “industry types”, in his triumphant early-90s comeback film “The Player”. Also, do yourself a favor and watch Altman’s “Short Cuts”, to see parallel storytelling at its’ best.”
Thanks, I’ll be sure to check those out. I was a little worried I came off too hot with my take. I won’t say it can’t be done well, it’s just that I’ve never seen it done well since I first learned about the storytelling style in my intro to film studies course in college.
crash has like one good scene in the entire film. the rest is total garbage that me and a friend laughed at the entire time we watched it
